Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:40:48 UTC No. 16274354

we've found some of appropriate density, but anything besides gas giants are difficult to detect.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:00:58 UTC No. 16274543

>>16274258
Redpill me on hycean planets

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:06:15 UTC No. 16274553

>>16274258
>>16274354
>>16274543
Our instruments suck ass for detecting planets even at moderate distances let alone understanding them with precision

We need better telescopes that's all, they should start rolling in 2025

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:07:17 UTC No. 16274559

>>16274553
Including DESI, Vera Rubin, Euclid and a couple others

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:14:56 UTC No. 16274923

I don't know much about telescopes? Realistically, how far can we go with them? Is there a point where it becomes impossible/unfeasible to see further with them?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:39:39 UTC No. 16275052

>>16274543
pros:
preferrentially retains liquid water in huge amounts; has so much hydrogen and such a dense atmosphere it doesn't even need a magnetic field; hydrogen-rich atmosphere provides chemical energy for carbon metabolism; potential habitable zone is absolutely enormous and conducive to longer-lived, dimmer stars while mitigating the major problems theorized about them (flaring, CMEs); ocean potentially deep enough to generate a MHD field anyway via dissolved electrolytes;

cons:
thick atmosphere is a double-edged sword; high-pressure ices at depth might trap native minerals (like carbon) to be inaccessible for life in the ocean; atmosphere will remain reducing even with massive biotic dioxygen synthesis because there's just so much hydrogen; CO2 in the atmosphere is potentially naturally reduced back to methane/carbon + water abiotically, which makes atmosphere-based carbon chemosynthesis basically impossible at scale; likely complete lack of tectonic overturning of crust to refresh available materials outside of dissolution (assuming the high-pressure ice isn't just impermeable, see above)

>>16274553
>>16274559
and if people are asking "what about JWST?", that's not really doing planet hunting because planet hunting requires staring at one spot for a while and JWST is WAY too busy with everything else for that. though IIRC it's still been able to detect some candidate exoplanets anyway, because it's just that good. fuckin' love that space waffle.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:14:13 UTC No. 16275401

>>16274258
>>16274553
>super common planet is hard to detect
why isnt this a candidate for dark matter?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:26:13 UTC No. 16275412

>>16275401
Pretty sure planets are too tiny compared to stars to be anywhere near enough to explain dark matter which they think should be 80% of the mass in the universe to explain how galactic rotation curves are alot faster than the visible mass would indicate

What really complicates things tho is that dark matter is also failing to explain certain measurements of galactic rotation curves, they stay flat way too far outside the center, millions of light years just like MOND predicts, but MOND is also hard pressed to explain everything

https://youtu.be/n33aurhg788?si=DlXhW6G_allDTYJ3

Maybe MOND and dark matter are either both wrong or both right, either would shake things up and be a way more interesting outcome than just dark matter if you ask me

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:46:49 UTC No. 16275435

Is it "Hy-see-an" or "Hy-shan"?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:49:47 UTC No. 16276391

>>16275435
the latter, because it's a portmanteau of "hydrogen" and "ocean"

"hydrocean" was probably avoided because "hydro" is already synonymous with water

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 22:42:27 UTC No. 16276651

>>16276391
Ok well, I'm not saying that. The former sounds better so I'll be using that and instructing others to do so as well.